H-GAC hot over climate

By Lisa Falkenberg |
November 27, 2007

Foresight — and the use of it — is generally regarded as a positive tool in a progressive society. Better foresight could have saved New Orleans' levies from ravages of Hurricane Katrina. It could have helped us avoid Houston's disastrous evacuation preceding Hurricane Rita.

But too much foresight can be a scary thing, especially to a politician dealing with a politically charged subject that requires political courage to tackle.

The Houston-Galveston Area Council discovered as much last week when it took up the seemingly harmless item No. 9 on its meeting agenda: "Request approval of charge and appointments for Foresight Panel on Climate Effects."

Seemed like a logical issue to explore — dare I say even forward-thinking — given that global warming, or climate change as it is variously known, is such a hot topic.

"Good planning and good common sense," is how H-GAC Executive Director Jack Steele described the idea. He explained that a group of volunteer scientific and local government experts would examine any effects climate change may have on the region in terms of flooding, changes in water quality and other issues.

If we're going to pour billions in the coming years into roadway construction and improvements, Steele argued, we should at least consider whether those roads are at risk of being covered by water in a couple of decades.

"I think it's important," Steele said. "I think it was one of the things H-GAC was created to do. That is, to look broadly and far on the horizon (at) things that could impact local governments and then provide you with good, sound scientific information that you can make the decision about incorporating into your planning."

But while some council members were supportive of the idea, others immediately began discussing the political ramifications of even acknowledging our climate is changing, while others began plotting how they could keep the report's findings from the public.

"It's fraught with political minefields, and you know we're treading in a dangerous area in my opinion," Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers said at one point.

Steele tried to assure the members that the project wouldn't be political, that the panelists would be reputable experts, including scientists from Rice University, the University of Houston and Texas A&M University.

"The purpose of this group is not to have a debate about 'is there global warming' or 'the causes of global warming' or 'was Vice President Gore's movie right' or any of that other stuff," Steele said.

But the skeptics waved their red flags in a debate that focused more on manipulating public perception of the project than the actual substance of the project itself.

"This needs to be handled very, very carefully with the media," said Baytown Councilman Don Murray, who suggested the idea be "served up as a 'what-if' kind of study."

Certain points of the dialogue were downright humorous, while others were frighteningly backward.

"The Cro-Magnons 10,000 years ago didn't sit around and say, 'Let's have a committee meeting on when the icebergs melt,' " said Colorado County Judge Al Jamison. "Personally, I think we should take the same approach."

Take the same approach as people who lived 10,000 years ago? Now there's a progressive strategy.

Other members wanted to make sure the panel's recommendations would be completely toothless, that there would be absolutely no responsibility on the part of local governments to mitigate the effects of global warming or address any other impacts we may have on our environment.

"We need to be careful that these things don't come out of this (panel) as things that local government can do to prevent global warming," said Murray, the Baytown councilman.

Meanwhile, Brazoria County Commissioner Jack Harris was concerned about the public learning too much about the experts' foresight on climate change, and — heaven forbid — getting access to any report prepared by the panelists.

"What if this committee decides to issue its own report to the public, being under our purview, so to speak, but at the same time we have no guarantee that we, this board, will be able to say 'yay' or 'nay' to what is released to the public?" Harris asked.

"Well, I guess what I'd say to that is we have free speech in America," answered Steele.

"That's not very comforting to those of us on the board because I think that we may have to then answer to the press about what happens here in a situation like that," Harris responded.

Imagine that. A public official having to answer to the press — and the public — about a report produced at the behest of a public body.

The brilliant ideas kept coming. Someone suggested that the word "climate" was the real political liability, or in the words of Austin County Judge Carolyn Bilski, "the buzzword that seems to be triggering the concern."

If they could only change the word to something more benign and less descriptive — perhaps "environmental effects" — maybe they could avoid the whole controversy.

This wasn't good enough for Wharton County Commissioner Chris King, who called the solution "hammer to fit and paint to cover."

In the end, they changed the name and made one more change before approving the Foresight Panel on Environmental Effects — they allowed themselves the latitude to perfect the charge and refine the scope of the panel's mission.

Or, in other words, render the findings completely pointless and therefore, politically safe. Now that's progress.